Subj : message-id
To   : Jasen Betts
From : andrew clarke
Date : Tue Nov 05 2002 11:49 am

Sat 2002-11-02 07:25, Jasen Betts (3:640/531.42) wrote to andrew clarke:

ac>> From the C standard:

ac>> "The time function determines the current calendar time. The
ac>> encoding of the value is unspecified.

> true, but all C implementations that I'm aware of return "unixtime"
> (seconds since 1/1/1970 GMT) either as a long (or posibly as a float
> in some cases?)

Well, the point was they can return what they like.  There is also the issue of
localtime vs UTC/GMT when it comes to using seconds since 1970-01-01 00:00.

ac>> OK.  RFC822 does actually specify a local part and a domain part
ac>> separated by '@' for the Message-ID but I can see why this might
ac>> just confuse the issue in FidoNet

> I can't, explain why.

In FidoNet it would probably end up translating to
"localpart@originationaddress".  People will then argue about what the
origination address really is in the case of gateways and so on.  So I suppose
you may as well not bother with that and just have a localpart, which can be
anything unique string at all (within reason).

>>> Another possible note is that IDs which satisfy the MSGID standard
>>> are a strict subset of this one.

ac>> True.  I'm not sure I want to encourage their use though!

> if you can fix FTS-9 we only need to replace half our software to be
> compatible. for something new it all needs to be fixed. :)

Message-ID won't stop people from using MSGID.

-- [email protected]

--- Msged/NT 6.1.1
* Origin: Blizzard of Ozz, Mt Eliza, Victoria, Australia (3:633/267)

You are viewing proxied material from vert.synchro.net. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.